This will be a terrible post because I don't really have time to do it right. But if I don't do it now, I'll forget.
I'm having a terrible time finishing Crime & Punishment... not because I'm not interested (because I VERY much am), but just because I'm having a hell of a time finding time to actually do anything.
Regardless, I took my first actual lunch break this week and managed to get through chapter 2 of section 3. It was so awesome. Raskolnikov and Razumikhin are talking to Porfiry, and the subject of an essay written by Raskolnikov and published without his knowledge is broached...
uhm... Raskolnikov being the main character who committed the murder and Porfiry being the lead investigator in the crime...
but that might not matter for what I care about at the moment.
I'd love to read Raskolnikov's essay in full...
Basically, there are two types of people... "ordinary" and "extraordinary." Ordinary people are given to following the rules of law. Given to and expected to. Not following the rules gets you in trouble. And, if another person breaks those rules, the ordinary people also want THAT person to get in trouble.
I don't know much about this, but I *think* that's a pretty Socratic way of thinking, right? Provided that ordinary people agree to live following these rules and reap the benefits of doing do, they also agree to accept (and mete out) punishment for failing to follow the rules. And I say "Socratic" b/c wasn't he the one who chose to stay where he was and accept the penalty of death instead of fleeing the country? Because the fact that he lived and was born there precisely enabled him to live and be born at all? And the social structures there enabled him to become who he was? Maybe I'm stretching. Or maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.
"Extraordinary" people are those for whom committing a crime is allowed. In a theoretical sense anyway. And not only allowed but, in some cases expected. I'll try to clarify (albeit poorly and with not as many words) as Raskolnikov did... If Newton, being an extraordinary man, needed to step over a few dead bodies to bring this new "gravity" idea into the world, then so be it. Which is not to say that he is allowed to walk around stabbing whoever he damn well pleases. Or just stealing haphazardly. Acceptable crimes, if you will, are only those committed in the process of attempting to bring a new idea into the world. Reason being that it is simply extremely extremely rare that anything truly "new" is brought into the world.
Another example he used was Napoleon and his codifying the nation's laws. In order to bring about any kind of new order, an old order must be broken. Which, by definition, would be contrary to the rule of law.
Anybody with me?
At this point, I should also note that I know nothing, and this is purely my interpretation of what happened while I was eating chicken salad at McAllister's.
And I'm not (necessarily) endorsing McAllister's.
Although... if someone from McAllister's reads this and wants to pay me to endorse the restaurant, I'm game.
So. Being the high-minded individual that I am, I take these scenarios lain out by Raskolnikov and try to apply them to something that's going on now. Guess what came to mind... Yeah... that fucker in the White House.
And let's only take one of the dumb fucking things he's done and call it a crime... say... I dunno... invading another country that didn't attack us and whose people weren't asking for "liberation" and for which there was inconclusive evidence that they even could attack us or had anything to do with an attack on us. Most of the time, I'm pretty sure that's considered an act of aggression. And most of the time, I'm pretty sure, homey don't play that shit. Unless you're Tibet and China attacks you b/c, damn, we're not going to fight freakin' China!
Sorry... the point, for argument's sake, is that george bush has gone outside the accepted limits of power and responsibility. Right or wrong, (and, right now, I'm not making that judgment) he did it.
So my question is... Is george bush an "extraordinary man?" He's caused the deaths of thousands and thousands of people who would, otherwise, be alive. (for the most part) And he did so in the name of this idea that was outside our current understanding of rightness. (Or, at least, outside MY understanding... well, mine and a significant number of other people) There really was no codified law against what he did (as far as I know), but he definitely did it against the wishes of a large LARGE number of people in the world. (again, I'm not judging yet) Is he extraordinary for going against the wishes of millions of people, multiple other sovereign countries, and the United Nations?
And does that make me "ordinary" for balking at his audacity for believing it was his preogative?
Unfortunately, it seems like the only way to discern "ordinary" from "extraordinary" is one's will to accomplish their goals and put their new ideas into the world. The goodness or rightness or wrongness or morality of those ideas is not yet debated. How can it be? These ideas only exist within the mind of the extraordinary person! And again, by definition, it would seem that these new ideas would automatically be condemned as "wrong" by the "ordinary" masses since it goes against accepted knowledge. Only history can judge these extraordinary people regarding the rightness of their decisions.
Raskolnikov (or maybe it was Porfiry) also said that, "Ordinary people are the masters of the present while extraordinary people are the masters of the future." (fucking beautiful idea laid out beautifully and this "quote" is from memory.) Rarely is an extraordinary man lauded for their extraordinary ideas during their lifetime - rather they are vilified and reviled. (like I do with georgy-poo.) If their idea turns out to be judged to be "good" then other people (perhaps other extraordinary people) latch onto that idea and don't let it die with its author. (I assume, anyway... how else do new ideas become old ideas?)
ok, ok... enough.
There's so much more about punishment for those extraordinary lawbreakers (like Socrates... he took it... and was fine with it), but I think that's more than enough for now.
So my questions and/or points?
- Does believing in your new idea enough to do whatever it takes to see that idea become accepted enough, on its own, to make you "extraordinary?"
- Is anyone who is in opposition to a truly new idea simply "ordinary?"
- Should all extraordinary people be given the opportunity to flesh out their ideas?
Initially, while I was reading, my answer to that last question was, "yes." Until I realized that not all "new" ideas are necessarily "good." (And I suppose I'm really only talking about social ideas here... not like, "Maybe we can get to the moon with a slingshot" kind of ideas or anything... and yes, Newton and Ptolemy and Kepler and Tesla had practical ideas, but, in their time, these ideas had large social repercussions. I think.)
Right. I said I was through talking. I hope no one has read this far down. This was crap, but it helped me think to type it out.
Labels: Books, Dostoevsky